ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Optimal communication complexity of generic multicast key distribution
Full text PdfPdf (364 KB)
Source IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) archive
Volume 16 ,  Issue 4  (August 2008) table of contents
Pages 803-813  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISSN:1063-6692
Authors
Daniele Micciancio  Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA
Saurabh Panjwani  Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA
Publisher
IEEE Press  Piscataway, NJ, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 14,   Downloads (12 Months): 126,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: 10.1109/TNET.2007.905593

ABSTRACT

We prove a tight lower bound on the communication complexity of secure multicast key distribution protocols in which rekey messages are built using symmetric-key encryption, pseudo-random generators, and secret sharing schemes. Our lower bound shows that the amortized cost of updating the group key for each group membership change (as a function of the current group size) is at least log2(n) - o(1) basic rekey messages. This lower bound matches, up to a subconstant additive term, the upper bound due to Canetti et al. [Proc. INFOCOM 1999], who showed that log2(n) basic rekey messages (each time a user joins and/or leaves the group) are sufficient. Our lower bound is, thus, optimal up to a small subconstant additive term. The result of this paper considerably strengthens previous lower bounds by Canetti et al. [Proc. Eurocrypt 1999] and Snoeyink et al. [Computer Networks, 47(3):2005], which allowed for neither the use of pseudorandom generators and secret sharing schemes nor the iterated (nested) application of the encryption function. Our model (which allows for arbitrarily nested combinations of encryption, pseudorandom generators and secret sharing schemes) is much more general and, in particular, encompasses essentially all known multicast key distribution protocols of practical interest.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
D. Boneh, C. Gentry, and B. Waters, "Collusion resistant broadcast encryption with short ciphertexts and private keys," in Proc. Adv. Cryptol.--CRYPTO, V. Shoup, Ed., Aug. 2005, vol. 3621, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., pp. 258-275.
 
5
R. Canetti, J. Garay, G. Itkis, D. Micciancio, M. Naor, and B. Pinkas, "Multicast security: A taxonomy and some efficient constructions," in Proc. lNFOCOM, New York, Mar. 1999, vol. 2, pp. 708-716, IEEE.
 
6
R. Canetti, T. Malkin, and K. Nissim, "Efficient communication-storage tradeoffs for multicast encryption," in Proc. Adv. Cryptol.--Eurocrypt, J. Stern, Ed., May 1999, vol. 1592, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., pp. 495-474.
 
7
I. Chang, R. Engel, D. Kandlur, D. Pen-darakis, and D. Saha, "Key management for secure internet multicast using Boolean function minimization techniques," in Proc. INFOCOM, New York, Mar. 1999, vol. 2, pp. 689-698.
 
8
J. H. Cheon, N. S. Jho, M.-H. Kim, and E. S. Yoo, "Skipping, cascade, and combined chain schemes for broadcast encryption," Cryptology ePrint Archive, Rep. 2005/136, 2005.
 
9
Y. Dodis and N. Fazio, "Public-key broadcast encryption for statless receivers," in Proc. Digit. Rights Manag., Feb. 2002, vol. 2696, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., pp. 61-80.
 
10
D. Dolev and A. C. Yao, "On the security of public-key protocols," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 198-208, Mar. 1983.
 
11
L. R. Dondeti, S. Mukherjee, and A. Samal, "Scalable secure one-to-many group communication using dual encryption," Comput. Commun., vol. 23, no. 17, pp. 1681-1701, Nov. 1999.
 
12
J. Fan, P. Judge, and M. H. Ammar, "Hysor: Group key management with collusion-scalability tradeoffs using a hybrid structuring of receivers," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Commun. Netw., 2002, pp. 196-201.
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
M. Goodrich, J. Sun, and R. Tamassia, "Efficient tree-based revocation in groups of low-state devices," in Proc. Adv. Cryptol.--CRYPTO, M. Franklin, Ed., Aug. 2004, vol. 3152, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., pp. 511-527.
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
M. Luby and J. Staddon, "Combinatorial bounds for broadcast encryption," in Proc. Adv. Cryptol.--Eurocrypt, K. Nyberg, Ed., May 1998, vol. 1403, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., pp. 512-526.
 
22
 
23
D. Micciancio and S. Panjwani, "Optimal communication complexity of generic multicast key distribution," in Proc. Adv. Cryptol.--Eurocrypt , C. Cachin and J. Camenisch, Eds., May 2-6, 2004, vol. 3027, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., pp. 153-170.
 
24
D. Micciancio and S. Panjwani, "Corrupting one versus corrupting many: The case of broadcast and multicast encryption," in Proc. 33rd Int. Colloq. Automata, Languages and Programming, Venice, Italy, Jul. 2006, vol. 2, pp. 70-82.
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
A. Perrig, R. Canetti, D. Song, and D. Tygar, "Efficient and secure source authentication for multicast," in Proc. Netw. Distrib. Syst. Security Symp., Feb. 2001, pp. 35-36.
 
29
30
31
 
32
J. Snoeyink, S. Suri, and G. Varghese, "A lower bound for multicast key distribution," Comput. Netw., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 429-441, 2005.
 
33
 
34
R. Tamassia and N. Triandopoulos, "Computational bounds on hierarchical data processing with applications to information security," in Proc. 32nd Int. Colloq. Automata, Languages and Programming , Berlin, Germany, Jul. 2-6, 2005, vol. 3580, pp. 153-165, Springer-Verlag.
 
35
 
36
37
 
38
 
39

Collaborative Colleagues:
Daniele Micciancio: colleagues
Saurabh Panjwani: colleagues